differently in France, and in most other countries has given very unsatisfactory results."1

SUGGESTED CHANGES IN THE PARLIAMENTARY AND PRESIDENTIAL SYSTEMS OF GOVERNMENT

Though both the parliamentary and the presidential systems of government are acknowledged to be notable developments in democratic government, the two systems are held, at present, under scrutiny, with a view of modifying certain features in order to permit a progressive adaptation to new conditions. Especially is this true with regard to the parliamentary system. The inadequacy of the Cabinet system as found in England became evident when the many exigencies arising with the outbreak of the recent war had speedily and efficiently to be met. It was found necessary to reduce the size and modify the existing form until a Cabinet entirely different from that which had heretofore existed was evolved. Post war conditions have also made necessary some changes in the organization of the executive department. Weaknesses and desired changes have been indicated in reports made by committees both in England and in Canada2 relative to the necessity of revising Cabinet government. The committees were authorized to make complete investigations of the distribution and execution of governmental functions and to recommend changes which would aid in the discharge of official duties. It was found that both in England and in Canada an intolerable burden of disposing of too many matters of trivial importance is placed upon the Ministers, that they have "both too much to do and do too much.' The chief function of the Cabinet, as suggested by the report of Lord 1 W. F. Willoughby, The Government of Modern States (The Century Company), p. 358.

2 Important among these reports are: The Murray Report (Canada), October, 1912; Report of the Special Committee on Machinery of Government (Canada), Hon. J. S. McLennan, chairman; Report of the Machinery of Government Committee, Viscount Haldane, chairman; and the Committee on National Expenditures, 1918.

Haldane, should be the shaping of policy, the final determination of which, however, is to be referred to Parliament. This would involve the control of the executive in accordance with the policies prescribed by Parliament and the continuous co-ordination and delimitation in the activities of the various departments of government. The report also stated that a small Cabinet was advisable, that its meetings should be held frequently, that information and material necessary to expedite the forming of decisions should be supplied in convenient form, that the ministers affected by the decisions should be personally consulted, and that a systematic method should be employed to secure the carrying out of the decisions of the Cabinet by the department concerned. As suggested by the Haldane report, the business of the executive departments may be divided into the following ten groups: Finance, national defense, external affairs, research and information, production, employment, supplies, education, health, and justice.

The division of governmental functions recommended by the Special Committee on Machinery of Government in Canada is also of interest. In its deliberations the committee made use of the Murray Report on the Organization of the Public Service of Canada and reports of the United Kingdom relative to the same purpose. The executive functions of government were classified and divided by the committee into four groups—namely, basic, services to the public as a nation or as individuals, external affairs, and auxiliary services. Included in the basic functions are those pertaining to defense, justice, and finances. The second class is subdivided into fiduciary, regulative, and productive services. The first of these functions are those wherein the government acts as guardian for the nation of its public domain; the second, or regulative, are those which define, supervise, and restrict the powers conferred in corporations or the freedom of the individual or associations in the interest of the public; the third, or productive services, embrace those relative to the social well

being and the economic efficiency of the people, such as health, immigration, labor, trade and commerce, agriculture, communication, and agencies of transportation. The third main division of executive functions includes the external affairs and those involved in the relations with other nations, while the auxiliary services tend to enhance the effectiveness of the other functions and cover such matters as legal advice, research and information, manufacturing, construction of public works, records, archives, and statistics. The object of such classification is to reduce the number of Ministers to ten and to require of those which remain technical knowledge and training. As to the composition of the Cabinet, it was suggested by the committee that there should be a Prime Minister who would be president of the council and Minister of external affairs, a Secretary of State, Ministers of Justice, Finance, Interior, Defense, Communication and Transportation, Production and Distribution, Labor and Public Works. Responsibility, it is suggested, should rest with individual Ministers for their administrative acts, while more responsibility should rest with individual members, especially in regard to making appropriations. Both the Haldane committee and the Canadian committee place emphasis on collecting and digesting information as one of the chief functions of the government. Through the proposed changes it seems possible that the control by Parliament may become real rather than formal, as it is at present, that the Cabinet would have more time for mature deliberation and supervision of the executive functions, and that full and accurate information could be secured by those responsible for executive or legislative action.

The presidential system of the United States, with its accompanying features of separation of powers and checks and balances, which became the prototype for the governments of the states and cities of the United States, after more than a century of almost unqualified acceptance is now being criticized in the light of modern administrative

developments, and at least some modification of the present system is felt desirable. In state, and particularly in municipal governments, changes are already in progress. A mayor type of city government, wherein the mayor corresponding to the president, is being replaced by a commission-manager form of charter modeled more nearly after business organization with an elected commission serving as a board of directors and a manager appointed by the commission placed directly in charge of the entire city administration. In the states, committees and commissions are making recommendations in the direction of placing greater duties and responsibilities upon the Governor, and at the same time establishing closer relations between the Governor and his Cabinet and the legislative bodies. A proposal for a modified parliamentary system has been offered and given serious consideration in several states. In the Federal government the lack of organic connection between the legislative and executive departments has led to numerous investigations, with suggested changes, and to concrete proposals for the adoption of some of the features of the parliamentary system. The view which has been held by some of the ablest statesmen is well expressed by James A. Garfield:

I have long believed that the official relations between the Executive and Congress should be more open and direct. They are now conducted by correspondence with the presiding officers of the two Houses, by consultation with committees, or by private interviews with individual members. This frequently leads to misunderstandings, and may lead to corrupt combinations. It would be far better for both departments if the members of the Cabinet were permitted to sit in Congress and participate in the debates on measures relating to their several departments, but, of course, without a vote. This would tend to secure the ablest men for the chief executive offices, it would bring the policy of the administration into the fullest publicity by giving both parties ample opportunity for criticism and defense.1

As representatives of the President, the Cabinet members, through their proposed positions in Congress, could serve

1 Quoted in P. S. Reinsch, Readings on American Federal Government, p. 48.

as better counselors and spokesmen for the executive than is now the case. Members of Congress, likewise, would have an opportunity to obtain more accurate information on pending legislation and to avoid mistaken action and, in some cases, serious blunders, which have been known to occur in the past through lack of information on the part of the legislators.1

1

Prepare a plan for closer connection and co-operation between the legislative and executive departments of (a) the Federal government, (b) state governments.

SUPPLEMENTARY READINGS

A. LAWRENCE LOWELL, The Government of England, especially Chaps. II, III, XVII, XVIII, and XXIII (The Macmillan Company, 1910).

A brief account of the working of the English Cabinet system. W. F. WILLOUGHBY, The Government of Modern States, Chaps. V and XIV (The Century Company, 1919) give a suggestive comparison between parliamentary and presidential systems.

Consult: EVERETT KIMBALL, The National Government of the United States, especially Chaps. VII and IX (Ginn & Co., 1920), and

JESSE MACY and JOHN W. GANNAWAY, Comparative Free Government, Chaps. VI-VIII (The Macmillan Company, 1915), for the powers of the President and the relations between the President and the Cabinet.